Let's debate villains

[ohko]

"How do you like your villains?"

—is probably a very personal question not so different from, "How do you like your eggs?"

However, antagonists make the lifeblood of many stories, as a story with a conflict-less hero is quite meaningless.

Villains, as such, are the personifications of conflict, and these stories can only as good as their antagonists.

+ + +​

I started this thread because I've read a few stories from authors on the ScribbleHub discord, and I feel like I keep bumping into my villain characterization pet-peeves.

The topic of this thread is:

What kind of villains/tropes do you really hate?

We can probably all go around and share, and maybe we can have an interesting discussion!

 

[ohko]

Since I made the thread, I guess I can go first.

First, I want to talk about the difference between a mob and a villain.

Mobs are expendable. Villains are not.

However, just because mobs are expendable doesn't mean that they should be meaningless characters. Conversely, don't give a mob a dramatic background/characterization (psychopathy is in ohko's opinion a very complex/dramatic character) if you're going to kill them off 15 minutes later.

This brings me to my first pet peeve:

+ + +​

Number 1: Zombie/kamikaze mobs

Sometimes, I see authors that are so invested in their protagonists, that they accidentally make the world revolve around the protagonist without realizing it. They forget the golden rule of remembering to see through the eyes all the characters on the scene (sanity check), and we occasionally get mobs that might as well be fanatic hyper-loyal mind-controlled kamikaze zombies because their sole reason of existing is to have their head chopped off by the protagonist.

Now, this is fine if there's a plot device that makes mobs fanatic hyper-loyal mind-controlled kamikaze zombies...

But often times I see these zombie/kamikaze mobs when there's no reason they should exist.

Let's go to reddit for a little bit of fun XD:

Q: Why do villains have endless amounts of henchman willing to risk their life for them, but heroes have almost nobody?

[...]

A2: Some dude pays me to have a gun and live inside a hollowed out volcano, i'm not asking too many questions.

A3: Are the benefits good though?

A4: Are a gun and a volcano not good enough benefits?

A5: Guns and volcanos are all good and fun, but once little Lisa over here needs braces, do you think Syndrome is just gonna fork over 20k to an expendable guard?

A6: Lisa? Lisa?! Do you think I give a damn about Lisa? There is a reason I'm a henchman. Forget Lisa.
GUN AND VOLCANO! End of story.

A7: What about a VOLCANO GUN? Gun that shoots... VOLCANOS

The jokes aside, think about your minions a little bit more... maybe. XD

Also, please don't make an organization of 100% psychopaths.

The broad majority of humans are actually quite normal (at least with human-like motivations), villains included.

+ + +​

Number 2: Psychopathic Characters

There are right ways and wrong ways to do psychopathic characters.

The Joker in the batman, to me, is sort of like the right way.

However, there are many many many many many wrong ways.

One of my biggest pet peeves is when authors conflate psychopathy with insanity. They aren't the same thing.

You can be born a psychopath (lacking emotions and empathy), but you can't be born insane.

It's actually a fairly slippery slope dealing with sociopathy and psychopathy because these are real psychological conditions. Contrary to popular belief (is this popular belief?), being a sociopath does not automatically make them a criminal. In fact, there are lots of sociopaths and psychopaths in society, but they aren't always noticed because for the most part they usually appear quite normal.

They aren't these cackling mad insane eye-bulging villains.

Psychopaths are actually heavily logical/rational/intelligent, calculating, and manipulative.

However, the see the world through an entirely different set of lens than other people, and completely lack empathy, causing them to feel no remorse when they hurt others.

One of the best pieces of fiction depicting a psychopath and their thought processes properly is In Cold Blood by Truman Capote.

It's completely off to depict a psychopath as an animalistic violence-starved feral human being. That's insanity -- not psychopathy.

An analogy I might use is the other villain trope of sexual predator. Unlike how sexual predators are sometimes depicted in fiction, they don't actually pounce like a hungry lion on the first woman they see on the streets and then proceed to rip of clothes. No -- it's usually far more planned and pre-mediated and chilling precisely because they've plotted the entire preying intelligently.

tdlr; being a psychopath or sexual predator =/= lack of inhibition

So what is the insanity part?

I feel like it's really important to hit this point because even if people can be born emotionless/empathy-less, insanity has to be developed.

In human beings, critical things happen that drive them towards insanity, and that should reflect in the character. Even if a villain's backstory is not written, it will greatly help you writing if you have already thought about those key points.

The reason for this is that there really isn't such thing as "generalized" insanity.

Insanity has triggers, key ideas, and themes that repeatedly resurface itself. These themes and ideas will constantly resurface and often seem like a cracking point in the personality of an insane character -- kind of like an especially tender spot.

Let's take a look at the Joker:

The Killing Joke (in which the Joker is the unreliable narrator) explains the roots of his insanity as "one bad day": losing his wife and unborn child and being disfigured by chemicals, paralleling Batman's origin in the loss of his parents. He tries (and fails) to prove that anyone can become like him after one bad day by torturing Commissioner Gordon, physically and psychologically.

From the backstory, we're able to pull out key character motivations explaining the way that the Joker acts.

Insanity has a logic to it -- usually it's some quality that is blown to the extreme, like an obsession or idée-fixe.

I recommend thinking about this carefully when making insane characters, because motivations still apply when talking about psychopaths or insane villains. Too often, I see authors brush off saying: "Because my character is a psychopath, they don't need any motivations!"

...but to me, that's honestly just a tad lazy writing.

+ + +​

Number 3: Monologues

Villainous monologues are bad! Don't do them. XD

Everyone hates them. >w<

 

[ohko]

Number 4: Kamikaze characters have to die with purpose

Sometimes I see kamikaze villains who know that they're going to die.

However, it bothers me when it's sort of like written off as: "Oh they're suicidal anyways so it's fine if they die pointlessly."

Because, no -- not really.

The whole psychology of kamikaze is heavily tied to martyrdom.

A martyr absolutely does not want to die in a pointless way (e.g. dripping on a rock and accidentally shooting themself)

Rather, they see themselves as part of a greater purpose, and their intentional death should play into the formula of that greater purpose.

If they can't -- then don't send those villains charging into the jaws of death (for no point), if their faction gains nothing from it. Rather, consider preserving those characters and giving kamikaze characters some self-preservative instinct too -- because because sometimes it's too pointless to die here.

 

[FriendlyDragon]

A trope I really don't like, hmmm. If anything, I really dislike the idea of "evil" villains. People are not inherently evil, no villain goes around destroying the world because they just want to destroy the world. Villains have reasons as to why they do things, reasons that make sense to them. These reasons may be twisted and illogical but these people believe in these ideals so much that they feel that destroying the world is necessary. And if your villain isn't some other worldly creature that has no emotions, then you have to remember that your villain is still a person. They feel, they think. They can breakdown. But their ideals still drives them, just like everyone else. The only thing separating a villain and the hero are their actions and the way people view their actions. And remember, the villain can be a hero to some just like how the hero can be the villain to others.

 

[cud-b-better]

In my opinion a good villain is how they contrast with the protagonist. You find a lot of villains have some sort of link to the main character, like an old friend, sibling, or parent. I like conflict of views as opposed to evil just for the sake of it.

 

[lilyWhiteRose]

i like sexy villains. all non-sexy villains should be outlawed.

ok just kidding. the type of villain i hate the most.... are villains with lost potential. the kind that writers just.... didnt get right for the story. like they don't contribute well with developing the protagonist's conflict or narrative themes... idk its so arbitrary because all stories are different with different messages but since theyre pitted against the hero in some way they should bring something to the table! i hate villains that are just there because theyre "supposed" to be there in a story.

i feel like this more of a general narrative structure problem than a villain character problem though, so... idk just write good characters lol

 

[Devils.Advocate]

Villainous monologues are bad! Don't do them. XD

Everyone hates them.

B-b-b-b-but I love them so....

Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know; that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!

 

[glenn-fletcher]

Villains to me make or break a story. Tropes, to me, don't matter. All that matters when it comes to a villain is that they A. fit the tone of the story and B. have motivations that make sense.

If you're writing a goofy, campy superhero story, things like monologues and such are appropriate, because they fit the tone of the story and add to it. If you're writing a grimdark or realistic story though, that doesn't work.

 

[SmolBean]

Just like @FriendlyDragon mentioned before:

"Villains" can be heroes to some people and "heroes" can be villains to others - it is simply a matter of perspective.​

A hero isn't a saint and neither is a villain the reincarnation of the devil. The two people fulfilling these roles are - in the first place - just people/characters like anybody else. Thus, I rather dislike it when both - heroes and villains - are just heroes and villains for the heck of it.

Both sides are molded by the people surrounding them. They are influenced and also influence others. Unless you want to write a parody or such, it is bad for a writer, if the reader goes "Who was that villain again?" one, two to three chapters, after the villain has been defeated. Just like the hero serves the world, the villain serves the plot and story.

Another villain pet peeve of mine is, when the villain is just unnecessarily and unreasonably cruel - or just make cruelty their only personality trait? ​

This is possibly just me, but I personally dislike it when villains cause a bloodbath just because they feel like doing it. Sure, it paints them as bloodthirsty and evil, but it also paints them - in my humble opinion - as completely thoughtless and idiotic. Why taint your name already before you could do anything actually evil without acting all bloodthirsty and insane? Even with a motivation such as bloody revenge, you think before you do anything. Right?

Even villains have some kind of moral code or ideal that they follow, just like anybody else - even innocent bystanders.

... Or at least, I hope so.

 

[lazyredragon]

THIS IS KIND OF A RANT (hell even I'm guilty of some of these)

the villain tropes I hate are too many for this forum to hold but my key one is in fantasy books, you know the type that starts with a prophesy that basically outlines the plot of the whole book giving the villain enough info to track down the Hero and inconsequentially trigger the whole prophecy fiasco, why not just ignore the hero or if you've known about him for years why didn't you yeet him against a wall when he was a baby heck even middle schooler you're the bad guy don't tell me you have qualms against some child violence with their limitless wealth and connections they could have hired a sniper at any point instead of sending entire fleets that get wrecked in single combat by a guy with a crowbar...

Don't even get me started on alien invasion books, you're telling me that an advanced race with the technology we cannot even begin to comprehend will be defeated by a species of monkey so stupid they can't even get past Mars?
And not even by the smartest or the strongest guy on the planet, just some rando with a bat?
Inconceivable, unfathomable, wouldn't military tactics work or collaboration between the countries let the UN finally be useful, and if the aliens are hungry for flesh, big deal so is every non-vegan on the planet point them to your nearest Mcdonalds and watch intergalactic peace grow from a fast food chain collaboration then make the book about earth's first waiter on Planet Orpheus X

Or what about those corporate evil books that are like this guys are rich and evil and hurt the environment so they must be brought down, I'm pretty pro earth guys but even I know that Mega corporation has employed hundreds if not thousands of people, its collapse just leaves so many people destitute, yeah you saved the forest now who's gonna cover the janitors kids tuition, or the receptionists rent.
These guys aren't stupid, they know good PR works just get them to understand that if they go through with their plans their public image will drop faster than trumps then their stocks will soon follow this is reality people lets make villains more than, "omg bad guy"

Coz it only takes one bad day to make the sanest man bat shit cray cray, make me believe I could have been that guy after one bad day

 

[lazyredragon]

Follow this for better villains

 

[lnv]

People have already mentioned that villains should not be evil for the sake of being evil. They should have their own goals, and not revolve around the MC.

What ticks me off the most about villains is the "sacrifice your loyal henchmen villains". I don't mind if a villain sacrifices those loyal to them for their greater goal. But when they beat them up/kill them because they said something or kill them for fun or for something minor, that makes me cringe. Any villain who does that will quickly lose their followers or find themselves poisoned by their own men.

Of course I understand sometimes a villain has to set an example, okay, that I can tolerate. But the villain destroying their own foundation for petty things, not so much.

On the note of mob characters, I don't mind learning the backstory of a mob character as long as it contributes to the story. Other POVs give a different take to the story that can give you more enrichment if done right. Take the good old joke about xianxia of how there is no difference between the MC and the evil young masters, only that you follow the MC and get more attached to them, not realizing they are just as bad if not worse than the young masters.

 

[GDLiZy]

I hated the villain that is not a threat towards the protagonist. By threat, it can be anything, be it power, influential, wisdom or backup plans.

The villain can be a cripple man that couldn't walk and could be easily killed by a teenager, as long as he could threaten the MC and forced him to compromise. Like if the MC killed him, his underlings would bomb MC's family and so on.

 

[Chiisutofupuru]

Villains are the protagonists to their own story.

If you only write in the viewpoint of the hero perspective, great!
BUT
You also have to think from the villain perspective too, he/she has a drive and reasons of his/her own.
Keep in mind or figure out what they are capable of... if they're doing what they would do in the situation. If they are doing all they can in the situation.

What kind of tropes do I hate? (Hate is a strong word.)
I do dislike villains that can't even hold a finger to the hero. If the hero can get stronger, then the villain can too.

 

[Alkaline]

It depends on the type of villain you want to make as going by Dnd alignment a villain can be lawful neutral to chaotic evil.

Some villain don't need any motivation, but for memorable or reoccuring ones they do or have a way to mask their lack of motivation through action instead of words.

All a villain need is simply to conflict with your protagonist in any shape or form.

The easiest of villain to create are the most forgetible as they villain that only challenge the protagonist through irrelevant strength contest with no narrative tying them to the overall story.

For example the young masters and MC in cultivation novels, the villain is only created for the sake of having conflict with the MC so the story will progress to the next recycle storyline, and the only thing keeping them revelant is the strength of either him or his family with their hatred toward the MC for either some small reason or large. So they will die when the MC become stronger than them and slaughter him and the rest of his family, clan, sect, like a pack of blind dog's that can't see Mt. Tai from the distance.

While the hardest of villain to create is to challenge the protagonist in everything as if they are the worst reflections of the protagonist manifested in physical form incarnate and the threat comes from the fact that the protagonist can't always stop them and something need to be sacrifice to beat this villain once and for all, but if the protagonist can't sacrifice he loses more and more that he holds dear without getting anything back in return until he has nothing left to lose.

For example Batman and Joker, if only Batman was willing to sacrifice his morals to not kill even the villains then he would be able to solve the Joker problem, but for sacrificing his morality he lose his justification as a hero to be look up upon. However for not sacrificing his morals people continue to get harm including those close to him until he has nothing left to lose until his morals integrity.

 

[JayDirex]

In my opinion a good villain is how they contrast with the protagonist. You find a lot of villains have some sort of link to the main character, like an old friend, sibling, or parent. I like conflict of views as opposed to evil just for the sake of it.

I tend to do that in my stories. Sometimes they are ex lovers :)

 

[Deleted member 5560]

Hey, I'll be the one to say it I guess: there's nothing wrong with a villain that is evil merely because they are evil. The problem isn't that they're just straight up, clean cut evil. The problem is when their characters are thin. A villain can absolutely just "be evil" while still feeling complex and whole as a character. For example, an evil wizard who wants to sacrifice like five hundred thousand people in pursuit of power. That's valid. "I want ultimate power, and I'm willing to do whatever it takes to achieve that goal". He doesn't need a tragic backstory like a dead wife or child that makes him seek out power or anything like that. He can straight up just be like, "hey, I have a cruel indifference to the value of human life", and that's fine as a villain.

Spoiler

Evil wizard wants power because he wants to be powerful and rule the world and he is willing to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people to do it. His motivations are selfish, his methodology is evil. He can be charming, he can have a light-hearted sense of humour, he can raise pedigree cats as a hobby, and still do evil things with no deeper motivation to it besides "personal gain". A way to make that kind of villain seem more human and real might be to have him meet up with a hero under circumstances where neither of them is aware of who the other is. Villain and hero chat, the hero tells the villain that he is on a quest to gain power (in order to overcome the evil wizard), and the wizard tells the hero that he is also seeking power (for no deeper reason than because he wants it). Villain is perfectly likeable, the hero develops a real friendship and bond with the villain as they travel together and help each other and come to rely on each other, and then in the end the hero feels deeply betrayed when it turns out the villain is not only, well, the villain, but that this humorous, charming man that he really came to care about as a friend or a brother turns out to be so evil. He tries to rationalise it - maybe the villain has a reason for seeking power? Maybe he has a tragic past?

No, laughs the villain. I merely want power.

That cuts the hero fucking deep, and throws him into even greater despair as he is forced to grapple with the fact that sometimes people you really care about and want to believe in, someone who can be in so many other ways a "good" person, can also be cruel for no other reason than that they can. It creates a crisis of faith in the hero, and maybe in the end they succeed in killing someone they once called a brother, but he is left forever changed and hurt by the revelation and no longer feels like he can trust anyone around him ever again.

That's a fairly interesting story where "the villain is evil for the sake of being evil" lends itself to create a greater sense of depth to not only the story but the evolution of the hero's character and personality.

A villain who is evil for the sake of being evil is no more inherently "bad" than any other trope. But a trope is a part of a larger whole, and so it should be functioning within a larger story, and any trope can feel lazy or boring or overdone when the trope is just left to exist on its own.

There are other ways to make an "evil for the sake of evil" villain compelling. Moriarty is one of the most immortalised villains ever created, but he's actually a fairly shallow character. He's just a bad guy who does bad stuff. But in any Sherlock adaptation, Moriarty is always given an intense feeling of weight and threat because he acts as a foil to Sherlock. Sherlock is always sort of portrayed as being highly intellectual and isolated because of that, and Moriarty represents a villain who is as intelligent and well-learned as Sherlock is, but acts on the side of evil whereas Sherlock acts on the side of good. He is compelling not because the character himself is interesting (he's really not - can you tell me anything about him? His family? His personal history? His first name?), but because he is such a successful foil to Sherlock, and represented enough of a threat that he actually managed killed Sherlock (ACD being harassed by distraught fans so much that he gave in and just came up with a cheap excuse to bring Sherlock back doesn't count to me, Moriarty successfully killed Sherlock as far as I'm concerned).

The problem with tropes goes both ways. A villain with a tragic backstory that motivates them down a path of evil because they're only doing it to achieve some "noble" end goal, and to them the ends justify the means, but that tragic backstory is only revealed right before that villain's death/defeat in order to cheaply make us empathise with them at the last moment is also just throwing in a trope without really working it into the greater story, causing it to lose any weight. But if we learn fairly early on that the villain is doing what they're doing because of a "nobler" goal, and we see all their evil acts as they enact them in the context of that knowledge, and the hero does too, it can add a kind of tension and sense of conflict to the story - because the trope is being used in support of the ongoing story, not stapled on near the end.

Ultimately what makes a bad villain is the same thing that makes a bad anything in a story - when it's poorly thought out, poorly implemented, and poorly executed.

Maybe it's just because every single big blockbuster movie coming out is a superhero movie and they always have villains with """"sympathetic motives"""" that I'm just very very tired of stories with villains who are secretly tragic and sad and going full "road to hell paved with good intentions" in everything they do and I just want a Professor Ratigan type who is so unabashedly evil he has his own song he makes his henchmen sing about all his crimes.

 

[tak]

Tate no yuusha have a good written villain.
It's so well written, i hate them.
I hate them so much i dropped the novel.
On the other hand, badly written villain? No clear motive and just there to bug protagonist? Only mildly infuriating for me.
Unless they are like mosquitoes. They buzz, get slapped, silence. Then there's another buzz. Repeat this too much and i get tired of it. You have been slapped 20 times or so!! Why won't you learn?!